Divine Gambling (Not a Short Story)

Sonnet to Science1

Science! true daughter of Old Time thou art!
Who alterest all things with thy peering eyes.
Why preyest thou thus upon the poet's heart,
Vulture, whose wings are dull realities?
How should he love thee? or how deem thee wise,
Who wouldst not leave him in his wandering
To seek for treasure in the jewelled skies,
Albeit he soared with an undaunted wing?
Hast thou not dragged Diana from her car?
And driven the Hamadryad from the wood
To seek a shelter in some happier star?
Hast thou not torn the Naiad from her flood,
The Elfin from the green grass, and from me
The summer dream beneath the tamarind tree?
Edgar Allan Poe2


He had read much of things as they are, and talked with too many people. Well-meaning philosophers had taught him to look into the logical relations of things, and analyse the processes which shaped his thoughts and fancies. Wonder had gone away, and he had forgotten that all life is only a set of pictures in the brain, among which there is no difference betwixt those born of real things and those born of inward dreamings, and no cause to value the one above the other. Custom had dinned into his ears a superstitious reverence for that which tangibly and physically exists, and had made him secretly afraid to dwell in visions. Wise men told him his simple fancies were inane and childish, and even more absurd because their actors persist in fancying them full of meaning and purpose as the blind cosmos grinds aimlessly on from nothing to something and from something back to nothing again, neither heeding nor knowing the wishes or existence of the minds that flicker for a second now and then in the darkness.
They had chained him down to things that are, and had then explained the workings of those things till mystery had gone out of the world. When he complained, and longed to escape into twilight realms where magic moulded all the little vivid fragments and prized associations of his mind into vistas of breathless expectancy and unquenchable delight, they turned him instead toward the newfound prodigies of science, bidding him find wonder in the atom’s vortex and mystery in the sky’s dimension. And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him that he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation.
From The Silver Key by HP Lovecraft3

*I feel I must note that when I start throwing "isms" around in here and giving basic definitions for them that I am not claiming to be a disciple of that particular "ism" or schooled in all the nuances of its beliefs or doctrines. For the sake of simplicity and my desire to not produce a tome the size of a tombstone, I have been obliged to condense, summarize, and in general clump together. Rather than an official and all-encompassing definition, please consider any ideological definition I provide as being my own, used for matters of categorization and comparison of general ideas. That said, I have tried not to categorize any particular "ism" in a fashion blatantly contradictory to its tenets and beliefs, and if you feel I have done so in some place or other, please point it out to me.*4


Divine Gambling: Why I Am Not An Atheist5

Let me begin by saying that I am biased, and I’m not making any claim to the contrary. I’m white; I’m southern, and I’m Protestant. Make whatever observations you think might be warranted. Furthermore, I think it’s ridiculous for anyone to accuse me of being biased. Of course, I’m biased. I had parents with opinions like everyone else. I went to church and school and college, and I communicate with human beings. I’ve seen talk shows, read headlines, and listened to sermons. All of these have led me to infer certain things whether by gut feeling, meticulous deduction, divine intervention, dumb luck, or whatever. I’m not aware of even the fiercest skeptic who says “I don’t know” to everything imaginable and still lives their life in an according fashion. Even if they profess not to believe them, they still behave as if some things are given.
All humans draw conclusions, and all humans are prone to supporting their conclusions. It’s the rare person indeed who likes to be proven wrong. Of course, some pastor doesn’t want to give a fantastic sermon and then listen to atheists tear it apart. Of course, some scientist doesn’t want to spend years researching a topic, drawing conclusions, and getting his work published only to have the scientific community tear apart his hypothesis as infantile and his research as shoddy. Pointing fingers at the Discovery Institute and saying accusingly “You want to educate people about your theistic ideology!” or at an atheist Darwinist and saying “You have a tendency to make naturalistic hypothesis in your research!” is as ridiculous as a defense attorney arguing in court that the jury should find the defendant not guilty because the prosecutor’s trying to prove his case. A person may be biased, but that doesn’t mean that what they say is necessarily incorrect because of it. It can make what they say suspect certainly, but suspect and false are not the same thing.
I have opinions. I have arrived at them through a series of methods, some that science would find acceptable, some that theologians would find acceptable, and some that neither would find acceptable. I am not a scientist, and I am not a theologian. All I know about science is what I have learned from textbooks and professors. Even if I was to learn about biology through extensive personal study and experimentation, I cannot know all there is to know about cosmology, or physics, or chemistry. If Steven Hawking says “there is strong evidence for X” I have no means amounting to anything of disputing him or even completely understanding him so it seems foolish for me to even try. Likewise, if a prominent biblical scholar tells me “this is mistranslated from the original Greek” I have no way of disputing him. Any person can only form their ideologies based on the means given to them by God or freak chance or whatever. No matter how much I learn, there will always be some field or profession that can argue from a position I cannot dispute because I do not have the knowledge necessary to do so. That does not mean I must agree with them. Nor does it mean I should disagree with them by default.
That stated, I think that it is also important to establish that a thing can be both unproven and not false at the same time. We make decisions on such premises on a daily basis. In fact, our whole legal system is shaped around it. Let’s say police have a blood sample that has the potential to prove a man is guilty of murder. Unfortunately, this sample has been contaminated and usable DNA cannot be drawn from it. There is no other substantial evidence linking the man to the murder so he is never arrested. Let’s say that the man is in fact guilty of the murder. It cannot be proven that he committed the murder, but that does mean he did not commit the murder. There is simply not enough significant evidence to make a decision to warrant arresting him.
Here’s a more convoluted example. Let’s say we have a man accused of murder in 1985. Several eyewitnesses place him at the scene of the crime and fleeing from the scene. Let’s also say that his landlord testifies that he came home flustered with a bloody shirt which police recovered and determined that the blood is human with the same blood type as the victim’s. Furthermore, they are able to identify that the blood spatter pattern on his shirt would be the same as one created by repeatedly pummeling someone in the face with a fist or similar object. The victim was confirmed to have received multiple punches to the face. Furthermore, several of the bones in the suspect’s hand are broken as if he repeatedly hit a hard object. The man tries to explain that the blood on his shirt and broken bones come from a fight he got into a man who tried to mug him though he has no way of verifying this. Let’s even say that the man had a history of conflict with the victim, and the two had been seen arguing violently earlier in the day. The man claims that he confronted the victim and after arguing left in an infuriated frenzy. The victim was still alive and well when he left, and he was mugged on the way home.
All together, there is quite a bit of strong evidence against the man though much of it is admittedly circumstantial. Based on this evidence, let’s say the man is convicted of murder and sent to prison. Fifteen years later, the blood from the shirt is tested with technology that was not available in the 80s, and it is proven that its DNA does not match that of the victim. Under these circumstances, the man is released from prison. Some people are relieved by this because they think he was never proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt since most of the evidence against him was circumstantial in nature. Others are furious that he is released because they believe the evidence against him is still overwhelming even without the bloody shirt.
Both sides can raise valid objections. Those who believe he is innocent might ask. “Why did he not have any of the victim’s blood on him if he killed him? Even if he was mugged, he would still have the victim’s blood on him somewhere. Police should have found the DNA of two people.”
Those who believe he is guilty might ask “Why didn’t he report the mugging to the police? Maybe he was afraid the police would recognize there was more to his story. Why was he running away from the scene of the crime if all he had done was argue with the victim?”6

In the case of the law, the initial opinions of twelve jurors who said he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt was enough to land him in prison. Later, lack of DNA evidence was enough to free him. In both cases a decisive action was taken, but all the state had was evidence pointing in one direction or another. It was never proven verifiably, 100% beyond all contestation that he was either guilty or not guilty. An assumption was made that he would only be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt not beyond no doubt at all. Reasonable doubt is subjective. I would have great difficultly convicting someone without some kind of forensic evidence. Some people could do it based on circumstantial evidence alone. In whichever case, evidence leads us to a certain conclusion and we act accordingly. However, the presence of no evidence does not mean a thing is false. Perhaps, the evidence has not been found yet. In the meantime, we often treat the thing as false. The presence of evidence does not necessarily prove a thing is true. It makes it more likely that the thing is true, and means that we should keep looking for more evidence. At some point, we may either find enough evidence or evidence conclusive enough to treat the thing as true.
I am not saying that this situation is ideal. Obviously, it would be much better if we could always know whether someone committed a crime or not. Then innocent people would never be sent to prison and criminals would never be allowed to get away with crimes. I am also not saying that it is impossible to know anything. Some things have been proven. Today, it is painfully obvious that gravity works and the earth revolves around the sun. Determining what has been proven and what has not is a very difficult undertaking, however. Even my earlier statement “some things have been proven” would be heavily contested by some skeptics. There is always Descartes’ Evil Daemon after all. Regardless of whether we actually know something is true, we often believe something is true and act upon that belief. Sometimes we have strong evidence and popular agreement on our side, and sometimes we have little more than a gut feeling.
Another thing we should consider that has a significant impact on our decisions is the risks involved in making them. In some cases, the level of risks involved has more sway over our decisions than evidence. Whenever we make the decision to get in a car and drive, we must know that many people are killed or injured in car wrecks each year. We don’t generally stop and think about this every time we get into a car because the occurrences are limited enough that we feel we are not in significant danger. However, there is a significant statistical probability that we can be involved in not only a car crash, but potentially a fatal one. Most people know someone who died in a car wreck or have witnessed a fatal car wreck on the interstate on the way home from work. Car wrecks are not like plane crashes which only seem to dwell on the ten o’clock news and action movies. They are right here in front of us, but many of us still chose to drive a car whether because we feel we have no choice or because we do not believe we are in significant danger.
Bungee jumping or sky diving is another thing entirely. Many people who are perfectly willing to drive a car could never be persuaded to jump off a cliff or an airplane despite the fact that there are significantly fewer accidents involved then with cars. Their perceptions and instinctual fears prevent them from participating even if the risk is relatively small.
Another potential example is the fear of snakes or spiders. These fears are certainly warranted as many species of snakes and spiders can deliver very painful and potentially fatal bites. Most people will not attempt to pick up a snake with their hands because they know they could be bitten. There are very few deaths from snake bites in the United States every year but people still know better than to risk it. Low statistics or not, their instincts tell them to avoid snakes.
In all of these situations we either allow our fear of potential risks and consequences to prevent us from performing an action or we suppress them and perform that action anyway. The instances in which we suppress our fear are very individualist and subjective. I am not afraid of snakes or spiders and I have no problem trapping them in some other fashion and moving them elsewhere. To many people this is out of the question. You could also argue that the suppression of fear is generally based on perceived need. We have no need to suppress our fear of snakes because we do not feel we are facing any requirement of picking the snake up. We can simply avoid it without any damage to our life or daily routines. We cannot afford to be afraid of cars however because we must drive to work, drop the kids off at school, etc. There is also the phenomenon of exposure to consider. Most of us are not afraid of cars because we have ridden in cars as long as we can remember. Likewise, most of us do not commonly encounter snakes and we know little about them. We cannot tell if a snake is poisonous or not; we do not know how aggressive it is, how fast if can move, etc. Our fear is driven further by unfamiliarity. We recognize that the snake is potentially dangerous and that we are unaware of how to deal with that danger. It further increases our desire to avoid the animal.
All of these observations probably seem rather obvious, and you are probably asking why all this matters. I am simply stating that decisions are rarely a matter of being able to determine whether A or B is true. There is often insufficient evidence to prove one or the other completely so we must ask questions like: which one is better? Which one do I personally prefer? Which one is more plausible? Which one is safest or involves the least amount of risks or consequences?
I personally believe that such has proven the case when trying to answer the question of questions. Is there such a thing as a God and if so what form does God take? If you are a person who is firmly on a side in the theism/atheism debate this book probably will not help you or interest you. I commend and respect those people who have arrived at a decision and apparently crushed their doubts. I must admit that I envy them a great deal and wish I could fell even a small helping of their conviction. For those of us hovering in the middle or who drift over to one side or another but still harbor doubts we know that doubt can be a scathing and unsettling experience. Why should I devote my life to a deity that may not exist? How can I risk denying a supreme being if that being may actually exist?
I am not targeting the assured and the convinced. I am targeting the confused, the unsure, and the downright stuck. I cannot provide you with answers, and I cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God. I can only provide you with my thoughts and hope they help you reach a decision. I can present evidence that points in one direction or another, but I cannot remove all doubt. Perhaps the best we can aspire to in this situation is to measure the potential risks, rewards, and plausibility of each side and make our decision accordingly. It will require something of a leap of faith, hopefully a leap tinged with evidence, a sense of the risks involves and the potential rewards, but a leap nonetheless. We are still taking chances regardless of our choice and it becomes a matter of divine gambling.7


Atheism vs. Theism: Empirical Evidence8

My skeptic sister was once challenged to define God. Her reply was “whatever created.” She was then further challenged to define good and replied “whatever that which created wants.” These seem to be the two questions at hand. Did something create the universe and if so what form does that something take? Furthermore, why did that something create the universe or what does it have in mind for us if it actually exists?
The first thing we must determine is whether or not there is actually something up there that is responsible for our existence and whether or not the universe possesses some divine quality that goes beyond the material and the physical. There are two potential answers as most of us are well aware. One is atheism which says there is no Creator or divine being and there is no supernatural presence in the universe. The other is theism which states there is more to the universe than the physical and that it does indeed possess divine characteristics such as a Creator.
Something else that I feel bears mentioning here is that we are not simply considering atheism vs. Christianity or atheism vs. monotheism. We are considering atheism vs. theism and theism can be pantheistic, dualistic, polytheistic, or monotheistic. The two main categories of theism that bears on our current decision I feel are what are referred to as pantheism and dualism.
Dualism states that the divine and the physical are not the same thing. That is that God may have created the world, but the world is not God. God is eternal or he existed before the creation of the world and will continue to exist after its destruction. God may have endowed the creation with certain divine qualities such as man “being made in his image” but the physical is not the divine. The creation is finite, that is, it has a clear beginning and an ending, but the creator does not.
Pantheism states that the divine cannot be separated from the physical. The physical is the divine. Hinduism is a form of pantheism. It states that everything in the universe possesses some piece of the divine, the atman as the Hindus call it, which ties it into the universe. The universe as a whole and the way in which all of its pieces are linked together into that whole is the Supreme Being or God. Unlike dualism, pantheism maintains that the universe is eternal, it has always been and it will always be. It is, in fact, all there is.
This is noteworthy because the way in which the universe came into being has bearing on which of these categories is more likely in the event theism is true. If the universe is scientifically proven to be finite this may disprove pantheism but it does not disprove dualism. Likewise, if the universe is shown to be eternal this may disprove dualism, but not necessarily pantheism. The existence or nonexistence of the Big Bang or evolution does not necessarily disprove theism though it may disprove Christianity or Hinduism or some other specific facet of theism.
To that end, I am thoroughly unqualified to offer scientific speculation about the origin of the universe. I know only that many debates linger over that which is called the singularity, the thing that supposedly spawned the Big Bang. The singularity represents an area that defies our current scientific understandings of universe such as the interior of a black hole. Like the Big Bang itself the presence of singularities and our inability to completely define and understand them does not necessarily disprove theism. Perhaps we cannot define them because there is some divine quality to them that transcends the physical. Perhaps we cannot define and understand them because we have not developed the necessary mathematical and technological means to do so. Perhaps in ten years or twenty years or ten thousand years we will be able to define the singularity and completely predict and determine every facet of its character. Perhaps we will not. The same holds true for any scientific phenomenon that is not completely explained. Perhaps in time we will be able to explain every facet of genetic mutation, natural selection, black holes, and the behavior of subatomic particles. Perhaps we will not. There are several relevant questions to ask in this situation namely how long will this take, can we determine if it will actually happen, and will this decisively prove anything in relation to the atheism/theism debate?
I personally have no way of knowing the origin of the universe. If cosmologists and astrophysicists have not authoritatively verified its origin, 100% beyond all contestation what possible hope do I have? I have encountered something of a dilemma. It appears that the origin of the universe is a highly relevant topic to consider in determining if dualism or pantheism is true in the event of theism. The Bible does state “God created the heavens and the earth.” Is this true or isn’t it?
In my personal experience neither atheism nor theism has been able to provide completely convincing scientific evidence. Again, this is merely my opinion and likely many will certainly enthusiastically disagree with me. Both sides have been able to present evidence, but remember evidence can be explained in many different ways, and the absence of evidence does not necessarily disprove a thing just as the presence of evidence does not necessarily prove it. Theism (specifically fundamentalist Christianity) has trouble explaining evolution while atheism has trouble explaining how physical matter can appear from nothing. Science may provide the answers in time. It is highly plausible that evidence exists, but it has simply not been discovered yet. The questions I end up asking myself is: how long is it going to take and can I afford to wait? This in turn moves me on to ask myself several other questions, the first being:
Do I require empirical proof to make my decision? Not empirical evidence, mind, empirical proof. I am well aware of the fact that I must have complete empirical proof to erase all of my doubts. Nothing short of God spontaneously appearing in front of me and announcing in a booming voice “I exist” will erase all of my doubts in his existence. Likewise nothing short of the much sought after Theory of Everything explained and verified down to the slightest nuance will erase my doubts about his nonexistence. I have doubts in both areas, and I do not see either of them being removed in the near future. If my doubts are a foregone conclusion and my inability to remove them as well, it appears clear I cannot make a decision based solely on a search for empirical proof. Perhaps I will eventually receive such proof, but as of this moment it is not present, and I must make my decision without it.
Or must I, comes the obvious rebuttal. Who says that I have to make my decision at this precise moment? Why can't I wait a bit to see if empirical proof does indeed surface or for that matter, why can't I just assume that empirical proof exists given what I feel to be the overwhelming amount of empirical evidence pointing in one way or the other? Why can't I just treat the thing as true. You're the one who provided all those convoluted examples at the beginning about that very thing. Well, if you truly feel that you have uncovered enough empirical evidence, or whatever other sort of evidence you find convincing to make your decision, then go for it.
Obviously, this sentiment lends itself more towards atheism than theism as atheism undeniably comes up stronger in the empirical evidence department (a phenomenon which I will discuss in more detail later). To this I can only provide my personal reasons for not choosing atheism even in light of what admittedly at times seems like its staggering empirical evidence. I have already established that any action we undertake is based on some of level of assumption on our part. Like the fact that the world around us exists at all...that we aren't all simply brains suspended in a vat of liquid being manipulated and stimulated in such a way that we hallucinate the world around us. This holds true for all those skeptic arguments be it Brain-in-a-Vat, Five Minute Earth, or the aforementioned Evil Daemon. However ludicrous they may sound, they cannot, as far as I know, be disproved. They are the obnoxious void which can swallow virtually any argument. In order to progress past them, one must simply shrug their shoulders and carry on. These skeptic arguments are an insurmountable impasse for some, but I have found it relatively simple to go on past them because I inevitably ask myself, "If they are true, what could I do about them anyway?" Well, I could rebel against them I guess, if I believe that they are true, which I suppose would consist of immediately sitting in a corner and doing nothing for the rest of my life but thinking "I'm rebelling, I'm rebelling!" Frankly, if all this is big delusion than I'm not terribly worried about it. I'm reminded of the lyrics to the John Anderson song "I've Got It Made." A starving person in the Horn of Africa would probably disagree, but as for me, as far as delusions go, this one isn't so bad. I’m no Neo. It's certainly not as unappealing as that other scenario of rebellion. Assuming that the world is real has no significant consequences as far as I can tell and is infinitely more personally appealing for me.
Making the assumption that empirical proof for the nonexistence of God will eventually be discovered is another thing entirely, however, mainly because the potential consequences of such a decision are quite significant and dire. Most all theistic persuasions maintain that God, if he does exist, gets pretty testy with people who say that he doesn't. Dualistic and pantheistic teachers alike discourage atheism (or at least the vast majority of them do) on the basis that it has extreme consequences. This is also why I reject empiricism in general. Sure, it's the easiest, but it sure as heck ain't the safest. This is far from the most scientific or heroic reason for making a decision, I agree, but I feel it is the best I can do given the circumstances. I also find it extremely unlikely that the empirical could disprove the existence of God anyway as almost by definition God, if real, transcends the empirical (again, I will discuss this in more detail later).
What of empirical evidence then? If I cannot have empirical proof, it seems I should at least have empirical evidence so that my decision if not proven is at the very least informed. This I am afraid will prove to be the sparsest part of this document as I am not here to categorize and list the many arguments that have been made in defense of one or the other. Suffice to say they are myriad and abundant. Many are well thought out and many are not. Countless volumes have been written on the matter and to learn about it you need only go to a library, bookstore, or the internet. I will say only that it appears for almost every argument the other side has a rebuttal and that in many ways the claims and requirements of each side make effective debate impossible. Why?
Simply put, science is scientific in nature (obviously) and atheism’s strongest arguments are generally those of science. Science is logical, empirical, and experimental in nature. For something to be considered scientific evidence it must be rational by the Enlightenment definitions of the term. Things are not taken on faith or gut feeling in science. Certainly, a scientist may follow his gut feelings, but gut feelings are not enough to merit being called evidence and certainly not scientific law. Conclusions drawn from experimentation, things shown again and again to be true in a physical fashion are the building blocks of science. It can utilize hunches, lucky guesses, or even dumb luck (Dang it! There’s mold on my specimen! Wait a minute, that mold is killing the bacteria!), but only if those guesses and accidents lead to testable hypotheses.
Theism meanwhile is not logical in nature or at least not empirically logical. The term “faith” is not used lightly in the Christian religion. Whether we are dealing with Christian faith or the Hindu ideas of escaping maya, religion tells us to look beyond the tangible, empirical world and what our senses tell us. It maintains that some things cannot be explained through humanistic means or empirical logic as humans know it. Religion is not rational by the scientific definitions of the term rational. It does not call for the formation of testable hypotheses and experiments. It calls for the complete opposite: belief despite clear empirical evidence. (I will discuss the idea that religion can be empirical or at least that the human impulse to form religions or believe in God can be explained empirically at a later point).
Does this mean that science and religion are diametrically opposed? Are they doomed to forever go about contradicting each other? Must we inevitably choose between one or the other? Not necessarily. Perhaps, they are not opposed so much as designed to occupy different spheres. Science deals with the here and now in a sense: that which is empirical. Religion deals with what is not empirical. It makes sense therefore that that which is not empirical, if it exists, cannot be defined or proven by empirical means.
I think it should also be noted that empirical and logical are not necessarily interchangeable terms. A concept can be logical, but not necessarily empirical. Many philosophical questions are logical but not necessarily empirical at least in the sense that they cannot be derived by physical experimentation. Can we empirically test what constitutes knowledge? The definition of knowledge or what it takes to “know” something is an age old philosophical debate, but not one which appears to be empirically testable. After all, you can ask people questions to determine if they know something, but isn’t it possible they might simply make a lucky guess? You can look at their brain under an MRI or hook them up to a polygraph machine as well but how do you know that the machine is calibrated right or that they aren't really a blue alien from Xenaton in disguise whose brain patterns are the exact opposite of a human's so whenever they lie it looks like they're telling the truth? Ok, I'm being an idiot here, but I think you get the sense of how many questions a skeptic could raise. Then, of course, there is the scenario where a person sincerely believes they know something, but they are still in fact wrong in which case the machines also would be of no use. I might be quite convinced that New Zealand is in Europe, but that doesn’t mean I actually know where New Zealand is. Or a person might emphatically believe that it is 2 o’clock, when in reality their watch stopped working yesterday and just happens to have stuck at 2 o’clock. Maybe it really even is 2 o’clock. They got the time right, but can they really be said to know that it is 2 o’clock when they based that knowledge on a faulty source? Isn’t it just a happy accident that the watch stuck at 2 o’clock and they happened to look at their watch at 2 o’clock? How can you empirically determine if someone knows something or if they were simply fortunate enough to make the correct answer despite their ignorance? A person might contend that is this case, it really is impossible to know anything. That, however, is counterproductive. If it is truly possible to know anything than "anything" must include assumptions like "Experiments produce meaningful results that help us determine facts" or "my senses are trustworthy sources of information." If is is impossible to know anything, the pursuit of knowledge in any form, scientific or spiritual, is a waste of time.
And what about transcendence: the divine transcending the empirical? Do we live in a fishbowl universe? Is our universe in a fishbowl sitting on God’s coffee table? If dualism is true and there is some sort of barrier between the creation and the creator: the divine and the physical, such as the glass of the fishbowl is it not possible that the rules which apply within the fishbowl do not necessarily apply to what lies outside it? The fishbowl after all is filled with water and things do not always behave the same way in water as they do in the air outside the fishbowl. If the creation is a closed system how can we use the rules that prove true within the system to explain what goes on outside of it?
These are merely a few examples. The underlying point is that the arguments used to support atheism are not generally acceptable to those who are proponents of theism because they often rely on the empirical. Likewise, the arguments used by theists are often unacceptable to atheists because they do not rely on the empirical.
How important is the presence of empirical evidence? I think that is probably a matter of personal opinion. Some are content to live solely on faith. Others require substantial empirical evidence to make their decision. As I have said, I believe both sides have managed to present plausible evidence though some is not of an empirical nature. The individual must weigh this evidence and make their decision accordingly.
Is it even possible to find empirical evidence to support theism? This is largely dependent on whether or not God makes himself known in empirical ways. For instance, a Christian might ask: do miracles really happen? A miracle appears to be a phenomenon for which there is no obviously empirical explanation such as a blind person spontaneously recovering his sight. If the divine manifests itself in the physical through miracles or other such divine acts then it does not seem possible to define the divine on the basis of empirical evidence. An individual who believes they have encountered such a miracle considers it evidence, but there is no way to experimentally determine if what they perceived actually happened or whether there is not some as yet undiscovered scientific explanation for the occurrence.
Some people maintain that God does not express himself through supernatural phenomenon, but rather uses the rules already apparent within the system to further his will. In this sense, he is merely a manipulator of natural laws. If he wishes to cure someone of cancer, he can use instruments already in place such as doctors, medicine, natural immune responses, and the like to affect his desire. We are able to provide logical explanations in such a situation as to why the person’s cancer was cured be it chemo therapy or radiation or something else. In this sense, God uses the empirical to further his agenda, but we have no way of proving that such empirical things happened because of God. We can determine that the radiation killed the cancer, but whether or not God was using the radiation to kill the cancer is beyond our means to determine.
My ultimate answer will be completely unsatisfying to many. I do not know if it is possible to acquire empirical evidence for theism for a number of reasons. A) I do not know that theism is true. 2) If theism is true, I do not know whether or not God manifests himself in empirical ways. 3) If God does manifest himself in empirical ways how are we to prove that his actions are not simply a phenomenon of nature?
Without empirical evidence how can I possibly make a decision? First, you must determine how important empirical evidence is to you personally. Is it possible for you to believe something even if there is no empirical evidence? Can you accept other forms of evidence besides the purely empirical? Furthermore, you must ask yourself if empirical evidence is necessary to make a decision. There are other things to consider. If it cannot be decisively shown through empirical means whether theism or atheism is true we are left with two alternatives. 1) Pick one based on intuition, personal desire, or randomly jabbing your finger at the two words on a piece of paper with your eyes closed. 2) Determining based on other criterion such as weighing the potential risks/rewards of each decision.9

The Rewards10

In the video game Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2 the player has the ability to design their own character. As the game progresses, the character the player creates can either become a good Jedi Knight or an evil Sith lord based on the player's choice. One of the characters the player character or PC encounters in the game is a starship pilot with a shady past named Atton Rand who on a cursory inspection appears to be nothing more than a rouguish dastard interested in gambling and the fairer sex. An enigmatic old woman called Kreia who serves as the PC's mentor at one point confronts Atton about his ambiguous past. The shrewd old woman manages to force Atton to admit that he was once an assassin who hunted and killed Jedi. Horrified, he begs Kreia not to tell the PC for fear of what they will do. Kreia's response is "Do not fear Atton. If she is Jedi she will forgive, and if she is not, she will not care."
This seems to be the sort of situation we are facing in regards to our debate over theism or atheism. If there is such a thing as a god (assuming he is benevolent) hopefully he can forgive our ignorance or doubts. If there is no such thing as a god, our ignorance or doubts are irrelevant.
The risks and rewards offered by atheism seem fairly straight forward. If atheism is true, we in effect gain complete freedom over our moral nature and the ability to determine our actions and ideologies without any fear of divine reprimand. Atheism allows people to behave morally however they please. I am not saying this in the "all atheists are immoral" slant as this is far from being the case. What I mean is simply that morality is not dictated by a code of religion based upon a holy book. There are still societal mores to consider and certainly an atheist cannot do whatever he pleases without consequences such as being punished for breaking laws. However, if atheism is true, there really isn't any such thing as morality beyond a person's personal definition of morality. Society may create morals that help insure the stability and safety of people to such an extent that they can live successfully in groups, but there is no innate or supreme morality. If there is no divine morality, there is no innate evil in murder for example. Our instinct and society tell us that murder is wrong because murder cases discord within that society, but there is no higher divine reason that murder is wrong. Atheists are not inherently prone to becoming murderers because they are still in possession of their sense, discretion, and instinct. A lack of theism does not necessarily promote "godlessness" as Christians might call it. A person can still be a good person without theism because without theism the definition of the term "good" is subjective. Good to society is defined as obeying the laws and exercising the practices of good citizenship. Morality on an individual level is another matter. A Christian might oppose abortion on the grounds of morality, but an atheist can support abortion on the grounds of morality. One is morality as a religion defines it. The other is morality as the individual defines it. Lack of theism does not condemn us to a lawless animal-like state. One of the strongest responses of atheists to those who claim atheism never has anything constructive or noncombative to say is the idea that man is not doomed to a state of sinfulness and obligation. If there is no God we are under no requirements to fulfill the obligations of a religion. We are not inherently evil creatures; we are not stuck in the illusion of maya; and we need have no fear of Hell or never breaking reincarnation. The rewards of atheism are that the looming spectrum of Hell is removed from our minds and that we are free to live our lives as we see fit. We are free to follow our own concept of morality or if we wish to abandon morality all together. We are not "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” We are our own creatures able to determine our own fate.
There is one question that bears mentioning however and that is exactly how humans got this sense of something called "morality" in the first place. Sir John Templeton once said "Would it not be strange if a universe without purpose accidentally created humans who are so obsessed with purpose?" In this particular case the subject being addressed is man's quest for "meaning" rather than his pursuit of morality, but in many ways the two topics can be tied. Many theists use the argument that the presence of a sense of morality and purpose seemingly present in all humans is due to our creation by a divine being. That being had a purpose in mind for us and it has a clear definition of morality. In that sense morality and purpose might be intertwined. Our purpose might be to do what this creator wants of us and the definition of morality might be simple adherence to that purpose. CS Lewis uses this argument extensively in Mere Christianity. But as evidenced by Templeton's quote if there is no deity and the universe is in effect random is it not possible that we were randomly assigned this "sense of purpose and morality" by the quirks of natural selection? If it gives humans some kind of biological edge, it seems probable that it was honed in us by years of evolution. Or perhaps, it does not grant us an edge but it is simply a biological quirk that does not have a malign enough effect to cause the species to go extinct, a sort of mental or spiritual appendix. It doesn't cause enough problems to warrant going away. There is also the argument that we have no innate sense of morality and purpose and these are bred into us by society. Living in groups does more to insure our survival than living alone and this sense of morality and purpose help to stabilize the group. Evolution impacts society which in turn impacts evolution.
The fact that humans' desire for purpose and morality is the result of a random universe does not necessarily mean that morality and a desire for purpose are useless or dangerous, however. To the contrary, if they are the result of natural selection, than it is highly likely that they are advantageous and have helped us survive as a species. Still, it is difficult to use them as proof of the existence of a Creator.
A question I often find myself asking is not "why do we have this sense of morality and purpose" but "why do we feel the need to live?" You might ask "Why does a deer run from a wolf?" The obvious answer would be "Because the deer does not want to be eaten" or "The deer's instincts tell it that the wolf will kill it", etc. It seems that most of those things that we designate as "alive" go to great lengths to preserve that life. This seems to be a very peculiar phenomenon. What exactly designates life? Even science is somewhat fudgy when providing answers here not necessarily because it is reeling from theistic blows but because it becomes difficult when considering things like viruses and prions. At what point is a thing suitably complex that it can be called alive? What is particularly interesting to me is why those things which are alive which are made up of the same carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and other elements that compose that which is not alive fights to maintain this state of "life" while that which is not alive does not. At one point does a complex series of chemical processes and reactions become self aware? Obviously life forms are infinitely more complex in structure than say a chunk of granite or a puddle of water, but does something arise out of nothing such as a sense of self awareness and a desire for self preservation? Some contemporary scientific research suggests that it might indeed be possible for particles to appear in a vacuum or for something to appear out of nothing. That instant of "mutation," that random factor that makes humans have a sense of purpose, makes living things want to maintain their life, and causes particles to appear out of nothing fascinates me infinitely. It is in that I believe that many of the more empirical answers exist, but again if God is manifesting himself through this seemingly random and purposeless phenomenon how can we possibly prove or disprove that empirically?
But back to the topic at hand, we have discussed the rewards of atheism. What are the awards of theism? The Hindu Swami Vivekananda, a student of the famed Ramakrishna, stated in his book Jnana-Yoga that all religions share recognizable themes and currents. One is a sense that the world "is not how it is supposed to be." This is another peculiar phenomenon that seems intrinsic to the human condition. Is this the same thing as morality or purpose or is it yet another peculiar characteristic that humans seem to possess innately? This is a strange concept that seems tied to our sense of morality. We look around at the world, at instances of child abuse, or murder, or in some cases at simple bad luck and think "this world is messed up." We get the feeling that something is fundamentally wrong with what happened to my father for instance who lost three of his children before my birth to a series of tragic accidents that would put Final Destination to shame. Looking at such events we are prone to feel that something about it is unjust, unfair, and in affect broken. People feel empty, lost, and directionless, and wonder why they have no apparent destiny or fate. Strangely enough, this is one of the things that causes many people to embrace atheism in the first place. People wonder how a god can permit atrocities like war, famine, and disease because they have some strange internal feeling that such things are not only horrible but terribly unfair. Some will argue that since the world is random, but people are obsessed with purpose they created the institution of religion to provide explanations to rid the world of its randomness, to endow themselves with purpose, and to offer solutions to the "broken" world, in effect, to give us hope.
One of two things seems indisputable here. 1) Almost all human civilizations seem predisposed to create religions to help them explain the world around them perhaps due to a desire for purpose bestowed on them by a random universe. 2) Almost all human civilizations have religion because the world really is broken and religion might provide a solution. If the world is "broken" our two potential decisions are to embrace atheism and in effect to learn to deal with it or to embrace a religion that offers a potential solution or at the very least an explanation. So what are the rewards of theism? It can offer us purpose and morality certainly, but we have already established that atheism does not necessarily take those things away from us. Theism can offer us purpose, morality, and explanation for why the world is the way it is, and a solution to help make it better or perhaps even fix it. The difference in atheism and theism is that atheism has never provided or at least claimed to provide a solution that will ultimately "fix the world." Theism on the other hand has. In this sense atheism can treat the symptoms but theism can cure the disease.
The next question that many might ask is "what about humanism?" If humans themselves are potentially creatures of inestimable worth and possibility could they not take on some of the roles of God himself? After all, if man is not inherently wicked or trapped in maya or is in general free from the moral and mental constraints and limitations that religions often claim he has what is to stop him from "fixing the world" on his own? Why must the secular world be doomed to be a place that must simply accept that "bad things happen and there's nothing we can do about it since there is no God to bail us out"?
To that end, I can only provide the answer that I am quite cynical about man's ability to do this on his own. To date humans have done a thoroughly abysmal job of "fixing the world." I have heard it said that anyone who still thinks mankind is steadily progressing and improving with time after the Holocaust is essentially a fool.
Again, many will contend with my cynicism by asking the question "if the world is still such a miserable place than theism isn't doing a very good job of fixing it either. Isn't that the very thing that you said it could do which atheism could not?"
For this, I am afraid I must provide an answer thoroughly drenched in Christianity as its answer is the one with which I am the most familiar. Christianity never claimed that it would fix the world right now and perhaps my usage of the words "fix the world" is erroneous and a better way of phrasing it might be that it "fixes the individual." Even with this correction, however, Christianity's ultimate goal of perfection is not something that can be attained in the here and now. There is a theoretical element incorporated into both Christianity and humanism. In theory, it is possible for a human to be perfect as the Bible tells us to strive after perfection. In theory, it is possible that all the people of the world could attain this perfection through Christ. But in reality, to date no human has yet succeeded at this except Christ himself. Likewise, humanism might maintain that it is impossible to truly understand the heights to which man might grow, what amazingly good things he has the ability to do, but so far no man has risen to those wondrous heights. Certainly men have done good things both in the name of Christianity and in the name of humanism but none have yet managed to "fix themselves" completely by never causing harm and certainly none have yet managed to fix the world. The difference lies in one principal fact. Christianity makes it perfectly clear that men will still cause harm: that they will fail and it doesn't matter because in the end all that is necessary is a valiant effort and recognition of their own limitations. Through Christianity, failure is guaranteed, but in the end, we get rewarded anyway. And the reward is perfection. The ultimate theoretical reward available to a humanist is to realize man's greatest amazing potential. But even humanism, as far as I know, does not claim that men can perfect themselves, that is if we are defining perfection as “never being ignorant, evil, or any of the things which we commonly call ‘bad’” or else “never causing harm.” The best humanist who ever was still causes harm and will never, of himself, be able to reach a state in which he does not cause harm. The reward awaiting in salvation or nirvana or whatever other goal lies at the end of theism is that a human can through God (or his knowledge of God) actually attain a state of perfection in which he does in fact cease to cause harm, in which he ceases to be “bad.” The reward in theism might not be attainable in the physical universe (though pantheism says it is), but it maintains that we will come to a place beyond the universe in which it is attainable. Humanists cannot attain perfection either in the physical universe or beyond it for they maintain that there is nothing beyond the physical universe.
This, of course, can lead some to point out that I seem to be making reference to some perceived communal definition of the word “bad” which in turn implies that I am appealing to some collective sense of morality. I seem to be stating that different people in this case humanists and Christians have a common understanding of the word “bad.” This probably seems curious for two reasons. 1) I already stated that without the presence of an absolute right and wrong there really is no such thing as right and wrong beyond an individual person’s subjective definition of right and wrong. 2) I also already established that even if there is some absolute right and wrong we cannot use humanity’s perceived innate sense of morality as a means of proving that absolute right and wrong exists because we cannot prove that any particular trait that humanity possesses is not a result of natural selection or a random universe. The question that must arise from these observations is: why appeal to perceived communal morality when either there is no such thing or if there is such a thing, it cannot be proven to be meaningful?
Again, we come back to a point of assumption. We must either make the assumption that human reasoning and perception are valid or else all our knowledge of the universe is meaningless because it is all derived from human reasoning and perception. Likewise, we must make an assumption that morality does, in fact, exist and that it is meaningful or else all moral laws, judgments, or arguments are meaningless as they are all based on codes of morality. The question is not “is there such a thing as morality?” The question is “what is morality’s nature?” or “where does morality come from?” To deny morality in both theory and practice is to become animal, and no man in possession of the smallest iota of something resembling “human” faculties truly lives in such a state even if he professes that such a state is the only truth. Even if he dismisses all morality, he is obliged to abide by societal morality if for no other reason than a desire for self-preservation and the avoidance of pain in the form of punishment. The possible answers to “what is morality’s nature?” are almost countless. Some possible answers are: Morality is derived from God and imposed on all individuals or morality is derived from one individual and can only be imposed on that individual by himself or morality is derived from an agreement of individuals (society) and can be imposed on all individuals in that society or morality is derived from one enlightened (or powerful) individual and can be imposed on other individuals. The possible answers go on and on forever. Both humanists and Christians (indeed theists at large) assume that there is such a thing as morality; they only disagree as to the nature of morality; theists saying that morality is derived from an absolute morality beyond man while humanists say that morality is derived from man. Humanism and theism also have many points of agreement on whether specific behaviors are moral or immoral. Both a humanist and a theist are likely to agree that stealing is immoral or that donating to Habitat for Humanity is moral. I am not appealing to a communal sense of the “nature of morality” or “where morality came from.” Rather, I am appealing to a general communal sense that certain behaviors are immoral or moral. Whether that morality is divinely, societally, or personally derived is rather incidental. I am simply stating that if a person defines bad in its most rudimentary sense as “causing harm” which most people appear to do, than theism provides a better potential answer than humanism to the problem of “bad” behavior.11

The Risks12

The risks thankfully are considerably easier to chronicle, though no less significant to our decision. The word “risks” is perhaps a bit strong or imprecise in some cases. Another applicable word would be “sacrifices.” What, in other words, am I risking or being forced to sacrifice by choosing either atheism or theism.
There is no easy answer with theism, mainly because different sects of theism require their devout to behave in different ways. If one takes up Christianity, a certain set of behaviors will be practiced and a certain set of behaviors will be expected to be sacrificed. If one takes up Islam or Hinduism the behaviors to be practiced and sacrificed will be different from Christianity and from each other. This is not to say that no similarities exist for surely they do, but differences exist as well. The significance of these differences is measured in a person’s belief of how important a particular behavior may or may not be. For example, a homosexual person might be deterred from a religion that required him to give up homosexuality. A person might be turned away from or attracted to a religion for any number of things be it fasting or speaking in tongues or the wearing of bushy beards. Like so much else in this debate, the importance of these differences can only be measured by the individual. The only thing that remains a constant is that theism in the form of a religion will require a person to behave in a certain way. They may be strict, they may be lenient, but requirements will undoubtedly be present. Atheism often maintains that religion is constraining, and they are not inaccurate, at least in as much as a person will be required to stem, adjust, or curtail some of their natural or preferable behavior. The sacrifice for theism then is one of will or individuality. This is not quite as horrid as it might sound as many theistic beliefs do not call for the complete rejection or submission of a person’s individuality and will. Some, perhaps even most, however, do. Even if the sacrifice is only partial, however, virtually every form of theism will require a person to submit in some fashion or another. A person will be required to behave in ways that they do not always find comfortable or enjoyable.
Some people would be quick to add dogmatism and fanaticism and all the dangers that come along with them as a risk of theism, and I am inclined to agree, at least up to a point. There is no sense even trying to deny that religions can and do sometimes become dogmatic and fanatical and that great damage often results. I maintain, however, that dogmatism and fanaticism are not indigenous to religious institutions or opinions; rather, they are indigenous to ideological institutions or opinions, and ideology does not necessarily have to be theistic. It is just as easy for a Marxist or an anarchist or a fascist to become dogmatic and fanatical as it is a Christian or a Muslim. Some ideologies are arguably inherently dogmatic and fanatical such as racism, sexism, or extreme nationalism. Whole cultures can be dogmatic and fanatical, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are theistic.
Here we can certainly resort to some sort of number stacking, trying to measure the damages down by a particular ideology’s fanatical members versus the good done by its moderate members. We could do the same by comparing the ideologies themselves. “153 people have been killed in the name of X while only 92 have been killed in the name of Y” and so on, but we would only manage to mire ourselves in a subjective and ultimately useless sea of data. Who has done more damage, the fascists or Islamic extremists? Whose charity has done the most good, the humanists or the Lutherans? Have the Roman Catholics aided more people or killed more people? Well, I would hazard a guess that all depends quite a lot on whether the person answering such questions has been aided or harmed by Roman Catholics. If a thing is invalidated simply because it has sometimes caused problems or could potentially cause them at a later date than the very ideas of culture, the nation-state, and language have no value and should be discarded. Maybe the world really would be better without those things, and along with John Lennon we can imagine it, but that doesn’t make the realization of it any more viable or probable. I also think that such a homogenous society would be unspeakably bland, stagnant, and devoid of most all of the traits which we find most agreeable or worthwhile about “the human condition.” (I’ll go into this more later.)
Certainly, some ideologies tip one way or the other more strongly than others. I’m reasonably hopeful that few people in the world today would leap up to defend the merits of the “tenets” of Nazism, the Inquisition, or Black September and rightfully I think are such groups and their symbols suppressed or outlawed. However, such clear cut examples are actually quite rare, and all of these examples provided are not really ideologies in and of themselves but rather sects of larger ideologies. Nazism is a particular brand of fascism, the Inquisition a particular brand of Roman Catholicism which is in turn a particular brand of Christianity, and Black September is a particular brand of Islam. (Also, note that when I refer to these groups as “ideologies” I am referring to whatever moral assumptions they may have professed or made and not the organizations themselves. The idea that certain types of organizations or hierarchies promote fanaticism and dogmatism is another argument entirely and I will address it later.) The presence of dogmatism or fanaticism amongst a group at some specific time or place does not necessarily invalidate their entire ideology or negate the good things they may have done. It is one thing to say “Nazism is fanatical and dogmatic” and another thing entirely to say “fascism is fanatical and dogmatic.” Even if we prove all fascism to be fanatical and dogmatic we still cannot make the leap that “all reactionary political ideologies are fanatical and dogmatic” and even less so that “all conservative political ideologies are fanatical and dogmatic.” Invalidating the Inquisition is not the same as invalidating Roman Catholicism and certainly not the same as invalidating Christianity and theism. Dogmatism and fanaticism are potential risks of taking up virtually any ideology not just the theistic ones. Some will also argue that atheism is inherently immune to dogmatism and fanaticism and I would again agree, so long as atheism is limited to an assertion that there is no such thing as God. However, the instant someone begins saying “There is no God, therefore people ought to do X” or “people oughtn’t to do Y” he is straying into ideological territory and is in just as much danger of dogmatism and fanaticism as in any other ideology.
The risks and sacrifices of atheism are a bit easier to pin down and without wanting to sound like Jonathan Edwards are potentially much more drastic and consequential. Again, we are faced with a great deal of variability depending upon the tenets and doctrines of individual theistic persuasions. Different sects profess different consequences for the unrepentant, the unbeliever, the lost, or whatever those outside its faithful are called. At their least, they are nuisances. At their most, they are the worst fate to which a human can be subjected.
So we reach an interesting point. Apparently, the risks and sacrifices of both theism and atheism hinge on which theistic sect we use as a point of comparison. The next thing then that we must ask is which of these sects is most likely to be true. This in turn all hinges on the momentary assumption that theism is in fact true. Or in turn, if we cannot assume the truth of theism and are not able to disprove it, than we must entertain it in its most severe form. I’m truly not trying to resort to scare tactics here. I only mean that if we are considering theism as a lump sum with all its potential consequences for neglecting it laid out on the table than we must by default take special heed of its most dire consequences.
I recognize the inherent speciousness of analogies, but feel I am obliged to make some attempt to clarify my meaning. Imagine if you will the government of the United States trying to decide whether or not it ought to invade Poland. Let’s say that it is well within their means to do so and that if successful they would garner significant economic gains. The only variable in the whole equation is what Russia might do if the United States invaded Poland. For the sake of simplicity lets say that Russia will only respond in two potential ways 1) they say mean things about the US on international television 2) they launch a nuclear attack on the US. Obviously, the US should be paying particular attention to that second option as it is by far the most severe. Because of it’s severity, it should and does have a disproportionate effect on the US’s decision. If there is a 40% chance that Russia would respond with nuclear weapons, than the US is almost guaranteed not to invade Poland even if there is a 60% probability that nothing of any particular consequence will happen to them and they will gain considerably. One would certainly pay a quarter to win a T-shirt at those odds, but would never dream of flirting with nuclear war at them. The severity of the consequences matter in a consideration. Even if the chance of nuclear assault is only 10%, the US will be given considerable pause, or they should be at least, and you’d still probably give a quarter to win that shirt. And make no mistake, the severest potential consequences possible for neglecting theism are indeed a sort of spiritual atomic bomb. Even if they are not particularly likely, they should be considered. Because of their severity, they demand a level of attention and caution disproportionate to their probability.
Well, the next question then is which consequence for neglecting theism is actually the most severe? Given the rather abstract nature of many theistic punishments, this can be rather difficult to ascertain. I usually approach the matter to begin with at least by how exclusionary a particular theistic sect is or isn’t. For example, there is no sense even considering a religion that is so exclusionary that it denies the possibility of conversion. Even if its punishments are truly horrendous, if one must be born within a certain group of people to avoid those punishments than it doesn’t matter unless you happened to be born amongst that group of people. It can be argued that Judaism could fit into this category. Conversion into Judaism does take place, but is quite unusual especially historically, and if one takes the rhetoric of holy books into consideration, treating them as the authoritative source on a religion than the Tanach (essentially the Old Testament) are quite exclusionary, making the prospect of successful conversion into Judaism highly improbable. In all honesty, I must admit that apparent examples of conversion do appear even in the Tanach, or at least the idea that repentance and forgiveness of those outside the Israelite race is possible. One that immediately comes to mind is Jonah’s apparent conversion of the people of Nineveh. I do believe that the Book of Jonah is still quite ambiguous as to whether the Assyrians were actually converted to Judaism or whether they were simply spared divine retribution. We will rehash Christianity and Judaism a bit more later on. Meanwhile, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are sister religions with highly similar tenets, commandments, and potential punishments. If Judaism seems the most probable theistic religion, but is exclusionary than the closest logical cousin seems to be either Christianity or Islam, but I’m getting ahead of myself a bit.
Another exclusionary aspect of a sect to consider is whether or not that sect claims to be the one and only true form of theism. In other words does it say “practice my particular form of theism or face consequence X”. Many religions, especially eastern ones, aren’t exclusionary at all. Not only do they actively encourage conversion, some of them are so broad they feel that everyone is already a member of them whether they know it or not. Here we start getting into some of Ramakrishna’s idea of “Many Paths to the Same Summit.” These eastern religions in many cases respond to western ones by saying “Carry on. You can reach the rewards of theism through your particular brand of it just as well as ours.” Perhaps, they maintain that their particular version is faster or purer or whatever, but they still often encourage the continuation of Western faithful in their own religions as an easier method than the process of conversion. Islam even does this, or at least, it did at one time, referring to Christians and Jews as People of the Book and allowing them to continue to practice their religions under sharia albeit after paying a tax.
Yet another thing to consider is whether or not a religion teaches the concept of reincarnation. Again, here we are mostly dealing with eastern religions namely Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. Under this interpretation of an eternal cosmos is correct than I have an eternity to get it right. I might not get it right in this particular life, but I can always get it right in a later one. Meanwhile, western religions namely Christianity, Islam, and Judaism maintain that I have one life-this life-in which to get it right. For the sake of safety, therefore, it seems I should err on the side of caution, that is, the western religions. While I’ve little doubt that a swami would consider this attitude inadvisable for one truly trying to attain nirvana, it does still hold some weight especially combined with the assertion of most eastern religions that western religions are valid as well. I’m not advocating abandoning all attempts at spiritual growth, after all; I’m simply getting them from an acceptable alternate source.
So we arrive back at Christianity and Judaism as the most exclusionary religions. Why side with the exclusionary, comes the logical question, of course. Isn’t it backward to pick a religion because it is the most exclusionary? Perhaps it is at that, but it also happens to be the safest choice. Basically, as a Christian or a Jew, I’m still covered under the vast majority of eastern religions and under Islam. However, if I’m anything but a Christian or a Jew, I’m not covered by Christianity and Judaism and therefore susceptible to its punishments in the event that either are true.
So, how do we get down to deciding between Judaism and Christianity. Both of them profess similar rewards and similar punishments which are what interest us at the moment-Hell being the word used by Christians and Gehenna that used by Jews. The possibility of purgatorial realms also bears consideration because of the overall similarity of tenets of Judaism and Christianity. If one supports the idea of a purgatory and the other does not than perhaps it is theoretically possible to live a good enough life to at least be admitted to its purgatory as both religions do believe in the same God and have similar teachings. The definition of a “good” person by the teachings of Judaism is essentially the same by the teachings of Christianity and thus such a person might warrant admission to one or the other purgatory even if they got some things wrong. However, this idea holds no water as sects of both Christianity and Judaism profess the existence of a purgatorial realm so they essentially cancel each other out. It is also highly dubious that purgatory is meant to apply to those outside of one or the other religion in any case.
Are there any ways to square these two religions in such a way that a person can practice one and be covered by both? Well, not really, at least as far as I can see with the exception of some small sects within each that do not make a considerable percentage of either. The vast majority of Christians maintain that the core tenet of Christianity is the acceptance of Christ as the Son of God. Meanwhile, a core tenet of Judaism is monotheism-the idea of there being one and only one God and of God being undivided in his characteristics. The Christian notion of the Trinity is not compatible with traditional Jewish doctrine. Here we could get mired in debate over the Trinity and the concept of Three as One, a topic which itself could feel multiple hundreds of pages.13

14

15

Objections/My Personal Theology16

Well, if we have arrived at acceptance of Theism and acceptance of Christianity, we have not actually answered all the questions and cannot simply throw continued debate and consideration overboard. After all, Christianity is rife with internal debates over doctrine and biblical meaning, and many people no doubt have all kinds of objections to Christianity and Theism which I have not yet addressed which they are chomping at the bit to throw at me. The formula I have outlined above is how I personally came to accept Christianity. It forms the bedrock of my faith, and many theists and atheists alike will no doubt agree that it is a cynical, self-centered, and even cowardly bedrock, and I would not necessarily disagree with them. However, since I have come to accept Christianity, I have also accepted the teachings of Christianity (as much as I can identify them) which are fortunately much more optimistic than my cynical bedrock. Most attacks against Christianity are attacks against specific Christian teachings or traits which were not part of my initial decision to accept Christianity so I did not address them above. However, since I have come to accept many of those Christian teachings and traits by accepting Christianity, I am now obliged to attend to objections against them, and shall attempt to do so.17

Evil Daemons and Mysterious Ways
One of the principle objections I have heard from atheists leveled at Christianity and theism in general is not so much an objection to Christian doctrine but rather to Christian techniques in debating. Atheists hate it when Christians use some version of the phrase “God works in mysterious ways” as a reply to a particular objection to which those Christians can provide no clear answer. I believe the contention surrounding this phrase arises both from the misunderstanding of atheists and the foolish misuse of Christians. On the one hand, I freely admit that Christians all too often hide behind this phrase, and I usually cringe when I hear it. I hate for it to pass my lips and try to avoid it at all costs. Many times, Christians use it as a substitute for the phrase “I don’t know” simply because they are too afraid to admit they do not know an answer or cannot explain a phenomenon. If you are a Christian, this is a mistake. Saying “God works in mysterious ways” does not convince the person that you are debating that you are clever and inscrutable. It convinces them that you are ignorant and cowardly. If Christians do not know the answer to an objection, they should say “I do not know the answer to that” not “God works in mysterious ways.”
Sometimes, however, when a Christian says “God works in mysterious ways” what he really means is something more like “I do not know the answer to that. However, I trust that an answer exists.” To this he might add something like “I think we will discover the answer in time” or “The answer is beyond man’s understanding.” Here is where atheist misunderstanding often enters the scenario. I agree that Christians should not use “mysterious ways” as a cowardly evasion, and that it does really mean that they cannot provide the answer to an objection, but it is also unreasonable to expect a Christian to be able to provide the answer to every last objection that can be raised. At some point, inevitably in a debate there will come a point in which a Christian is obliged to say “I don’t know” or “God works in mysterious ways.”
Let’s look at it from the other angle for a moment. Suppose an atheist believes that the universe is the summation of all things, that there is in fact no God, no supernatural, no divine: that Nature=Everything, that everything is derived from nature. Now it seems to me that this atheist has too possible options. 1) He can believe that science will eventually completely explain nature and therefore everything. 2) Science cannot completely explain nature and certain things will therefore always remain outside of men’s understanding. These things are not necessarily beyond nature simply beyond men’s understanding. In either case, he must freely admit that he cannot provide the answer to everything. In the first case, even if science can eventually provide all the answers, it cannot provide all the answers right now. If such an atheist says “I do not know the answer” what he really means is “I do not know, but I trust there is an answer and that science will one day reveal it.” In the second case when he says “I do not know” he really means “I do not know the answer, but I trust there is one that will either be revealed by science or which men cannot discover.” In either case, he concedes his ignorance and is asking one to assume either “the answer will come in time” or “men cannot grasp the answer.” Such is the exact same thing a Christian is asking when he uses the phrase “God works in mysterious ways.”
Someone might of course point out that a third possible option exists for our hypothetical atheist. Option 3 could go something like “the only answer is that there are no answers.” This statement hinges on the assumption that nature is completely random. The other options hinge on the assumption that nature follows laws and has patterns and that science can decipher and even predict those patterns. In the case of option 3, the correct answer to every question is “the universe is random.” The answer to “why do bad things happen to good people” is “the universe is random.” The correct answer to “what time is it?” is also “the universe is random.” By saying “it is 2 o’clock” you assume that a predictable pattern is occurring, in this case a pattern known as the passage of time. Option 3 renders debate impossible. In fact, it makes asking questions themselves meaningless. There is no debating such a statement. It is a far larger void than “god works in mysterious ways.”
There is one more objection that a staunch supporter of option 3 might still raise. That is that “the occurrence of a few predictable patterns here and there in a random universe is in and of itself random.” Think of it this way. Say that the numbers 1-100 are printed on 100 pieces of paper and put into a box. I am told to draw four numbers with my eyes closed. The numbers I draw happen to be 25, 50, 75, and 100 which is obviously a predictable pattern. At first it seems like this pattern cannot possibly be random, but aren’t the odds that would I draw any particular number always the same, all other things being equal? In that case, it was just as likely that I would draw 25, 50, 75, and 100 as it was that I would draw 23, 4, 87, and 15. Why shouldn’t a few predictable patterns arise in a random universe, patterns such the rotations of planets or human digestion? Well, it seems like an awful lot of those patterns have converged in the part of the universe inhabited by humanity. If we happen to be living in a nice local bubble of patterns, it doesn’t seem to me that much has changed. The fact that predictable patterns randomly occur does not change the fact that the patterns are predictable. It does mean that any predictions of such patterns we may make are meaningless because they are ultimately derived from a random universe. All we have accomplished by such a scenario is to create a local pocket in which human debate is possible but is still ultimately meaningless because it is only by accident that that debate is possible. No observation we make is based on any real understanding of either moral or scientific laws because no such laws really exist except by chance at this moment and this place. They have no worthwhile application. Why not just say human debate is meaningless from the get-go and leave it at that? By even having a debate, we are assuming that human debate is both possible and meaningful.
Another important observation is that the particular objection to which a Christian responds with “mysterious ways” does in fact matter. There are certain questions to which Christianity must be able to provide sensible answers or risk invalidating itself. A Christian should not be surprised that an atheist is not going to find “mysterious ways” a satisfactory answer to questions like “why do bad things happen to good people?” or “why would a perfect God create imperfect beings?” “Mysterious ways” does not exempt Christians from the responsibility of questioning and reasoning. Herein, we enter in two more major objections, one given by atheists and the other by Christians.
The Christian objection probably goes something like this “But God does work in mysterious ways, and anyone who is to become a Christian must come to terms with that. He must accept that he will never have the answer to everything.” I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, but think it has been misapplied. The problem is that Christians are trying to use the nature of God as evidence that God exists and ought to be obeyed. Imagine for a moment that you are trying to convince someone that scientists have discovered dangerous levels of mercury in trout and therefore they should not eat the fish. Now you can spend all day long showing them the results of Study A and Experiment B, but if all the while they believe that science itself is faulty, they will not believe the evidence. You must first convince them that science is valid before you can convince them that some specific study or experiment is valid. Likewise, you must first convince them that there is such a thing as God before you can convince them that God is mysterious. One cannot appeal to an atheist in arguments derived from faith. They do not believe in the thing on which that faith is based. One must appeal to an atheist on arguments derived in logic. Now, I am not advocating making up empirical evidence where there may be none, but as I have already stated the words empirical and logical are not necessarily interchangeable.
Another Christian objection might run something like this, “Why should I bother stooping to such people’s level? If they are not sensible enough to see what to me is so intrinsically obvious why must I try to hamstring myself and convince them in their own terms?” To which I reply with one phrase: The Great Commission. Found in Matthew 28: 18-20 it goes something like this “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me [Christ]. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Nothing in that implies to me that we as Christians are meant to make some vague, watery effort at conversion. We are to make an arduous, valiant attempt at it. One cannot stand on a street-corner in Bangkok yelling in English and hope to convince anyone of anything. One cannot expect a starving man to attend to sermons until his hunger has been satisfied. One cannot expect an atheist to respond to arguments based on faith. For a Christian to expect otherwise and refuse growth or effort because of it is nothing but obstinacy and laziness. If a Christian has any doubts about how insistent God himself can be with a person who refuses to teach out of laziness, spite, or cowardice, that Christian need only read the Book of Jonah. I will also add that learning such logical arguments is likely to strengthen faith on a personal level. I also believe it will drastically improve the demeanor of the world at large towards Christians.
Now, one atheist objection that is related to the Christian objection above might go something like this “I do not expect Christians to be able to give me the answer to everything, but no Christian has ever provided me with an answer for X except by saying ‘God works in mysterious ways’ and unless X is truly answered, I can never be a Christian.” Another objection might go, “I have no problem accepting the fact that God might be mysterious (if he exists), but rather I see nothing that convinces me that Christians’ belief in God is logically or honestly derived.” In the second case, a Christian has no authority to be making statements about the nature of God because he has never bothered to examine his own belief in God with anything resembling logic or honesty. He is “unqualified” to make such statements in the first place. Now, I will freely admit that this is all too often the case. Very often the loudest “bible-thumpers” have no real authority on which to say much of anything. I am as sick of recycled, un-thought-out diatribes as the next person and believe that Christianity is all too happily digging and lining its own grave with them. I have no true global rebuttals for these two objections unless they fit into the following description. I must ask the atheists making these objections which “Christians” it is that they reference. It doesn’t matter if these are Christians the atheist has sought out or Christians that have sought the atheist out. I am talking about their credentials, not their location. Expecting “John Doe the bible-thumping laymen plumber of 1st Holy Church” to provide you with well-thought out, logical answers to your objections is, frankly, silly. It might grant you satisfaction to pop his swollen head by stumping him, but it is no valid basis on which to categorize the qualifications of all Christians. It is also silly that 1st Holy Church decided to send “John Doe the bible-thumping laymen plumber” door-to-door in the first place, but that does not mean that some other Christian might not be able to provide you with real answers. Categorizing Christians based upon such people is the same as Christians categorizing all atheists by the few “angry” ones they have met. Arguments against atheism based on the “angry” have no validity as the “angry” do not constitute all atheists. Likewise arguments against Christianity based on “bible-thumpers” or the “ill-informed” are not valid, as not all Christians are bible-thumpers or ill-informed. In my view, a person’s views on atheism or Christianity have little or no validity beyond that single person unless they have contended with more than just the other side’s peasant foot soldiers. They must have contended with at least some berserkers and janissaries, and both atheism and Christianity have produced dragons. So I ask both atheists and Christians if the opponents and arguments they have faced from the other side are merely trivial ones, and if they are only trivial ones, why have they not sought out the more meaningful ones? If the above atheist objections are based solely on the “peasant foot soldiers” of Christianity, they have little or no validity. If they are not based on such “peasant foot soldiers,” then I concede that they could be valid.
I feel I must apologize in advance to all laymen, plumbers, and John Does who, in fact, are not bible-thumpers, and I am sure most are not. I am also making no claim at all that I amount to anything more than a “peasant foot soldier” myself and feel I must refer you to the next section for clarification.18

Silly Arguments: Semantics, Gimmicks, and Flowery Nonsense
There are some objections and arguments which are little more than meaningless distractions. Some people are ignorant of their nature and think they have real validity. Others know they have no real meat and persist in using them anyway in the hopes that no one else will notice how empty they are. Here I am not going to attempt to identify every possible objection of this type. Rather I am going to identify a few which will hopefully be helpful for diagnosing others.
The first are what I call objections of semantics. I have heard certain Christians say “I do not believe in evolution.” To this I have often heard the reply that “Evolution is not a religious belief. One cannot ‘believe’ it or ‘disbelieve’ it.” Let’s look for a moment at some of the meanings of the word “believe.” I might say “I don’t believe in ghosts.” When I say this, what I really mean is “I do not think that ghosts exist.” Or perhaps an even better statement: “I think that the proposal that ghosts exist is false.” To this last statement, one could probably add something like “I think the evidence supporting their existence is insufficient.” Now, I might also say something like “I do not believe in abortion.” In this case, I am not saying “I do not believe abortion exists.” I am saying something much more like “I think that abortion (which exists) is immoral.” Here, the subtle differences in these two types of statements lie around the meanings of the words “false” and “immoral.” The idea that ghosts exist I have called “false.” The fact that abortion does in fact exist I have called “immoral.” One is, if you like, about whether I think something exists or not. The other is about whether I consider an already occurring existence to be moral or immoral.
So the real question arises: in which of these categories does the statement “I do not believe in evolution” belong? It might mean “I do not think evolution exists” which might also be rephrased as “I think the proposal that evolution exists is false.” Or it might mean “I think evolution (which exists) is immoral.” Correct me if I am wrong, but when I hear the phrase “I do not believe in evolution” the first meaning and not the second invariably leaps into my mind, and I think the same holds true for most people. In order for the second to be the case, one must admit the existence of evolution in the first place. Now, one might still say that they believe that evolution, if true, has moral ramifications, but that is another debate entirely.
“Evolution is not a religious belief. One cannot ‘believe’ or ‘disbelieve’ in it” This statement is only applicable if “believe” in the phrase “I do not believe in evolution” is pertaining to evolution’s morality and not to its validity. Otherwise, the most it can do is to point out that the statement “I don’t believe in evolution” is imprecise. However, it does not necessarily follow that what a person means by this statement must therefore be false as well. Obviously, objections of this nature, objections of semantics, are indispensable if meaningful and clear debate is ever going to take place. Imprecision must be weeded out if clarity is to arise, but debates should not end with objections of this nature. “One cannot ‘believe’ in evolution” tells us nothing about whether or not evolution is true, and also nothing about its morality if it is true. It merely removes a potential imprecision so that the debate about evolution’s validity can continue. While the statement “I don’t believe in evolution” also tells us nothing about evolution’s validity or its morality on its own, it is possible that it can if allowed to flow into “I don’t believe in evolution because of X.” In this later case, a person is providing what they think is evidence pertaining to the validity or character of evolution.
This opens the door for my next category of silly arguments, which I call gimmicks. Gimmicks deflect the debate away from a topic’s validity and onto the character of one of the debaters. This usually tells us nothing about the actual topic being debated. One of these statements is true: “God does not exist” or “God exists.” Now let’s pretend that a person we know to be insane says “God exists.” Obviously, our attention immediately goes to the fact that this person is unlikely to be a reliable source of information. Let’s say that when pressured to provide a reason why God exists, the insane man’s response is “Cheese is tasty.” This is obviously nonsense, and a person would be well served to say so. However, a blanket dismissal of the whole scenario as nonsense can be dangerous. The topic we are considering is whether or not God exists. Let’s assume for a moment that God does in fact exist. In this case, the insane man was correct. Now we can make a sound argument that he does not know that God exists as his evidence is faulty, but that does not change the fact that the statement “God exists” in this case is still true despite his insanity and despite his faulty evidence. Once more, we enter a scenario where an objection is useful to clear away an imprecision but should not be the end of the debate. Saying “this is nonsense” or “this man is crazy” really means something more like “this man is not a reliable source of evidence in this debate.” It tells us nothing about whether the topic being debated is actually true. In this sense, a child molester, a chronic liar, a three-year old, and a parrot might all say things which are true. The fact that they are child molesters, chronic liars, three year-olds, or parrots has nothing to do with whether what they say is actually true. It means they are unreliable sources for determining if that statement is true. This can be dangerous. It is one thing to say “A terrorist says Islam is true, but since he is a terrorist, he is an unreliable source of information.” It is quite another to say, “A terrorist says Islam is true, but since he is a terrorist, Islam must be false.”
Now, I’ve used some rather extreme examples here, mostly to try to get the concept of gimmicks clear in people’s minds. Most people probably think that this situation is so intrinsically obvious that I need not even discuss it. I will now try to demonstrate how insidious gimmicks can really be. Let’s for a moment consider a presidential debate. I think the theory behind a presidential debate goes something like this, “The candidates will compare ideas on a level playing field. Since all other things are held equal, the person with the best ideas and the best skills will provide the best answers. Therefore, the person who can provide the best answers will make the best president.” Now, I contend that in actuality, a presidential debate does not demonstrate who has the best ideas or who has the best skills. Rather, it demonstrates who is the best at debating. Now it may be that the debate can tell us all sorts of things about the candidates. It might tell us that candidate A is informed, well-spoken, and doesn’t bend under pressure. Those all seem like good traits for a president to have, but does it naturally follow that candidate A therefore will make the best president? Perhaps it does. Perhaps, in truth, however, candidate A is merely good at memorizing data and parroting it. Perhaps, he isn’t any good at all at answering a question when he hasn’t got someone to feed him data. Perhaps, he does have good ideas, but maybe he also has a horrible temper and won’t ever listen to advice. In both those cases, he may make a horrible president. It looks like we need to look to other sources of information.
We can also look at speeches. Perhaps, candidate A makes good speeches and candidate B makes terrible speeches. Does this tell us which one might have the best ideas or which one might be the best president? Suppose the statement “evolution is true” is, in fact true. I am asked to give a speech that proves this statement is true, but my speech is horrible and unconvincing. Does that mean that evolution is not true even though I failed to convince anyone that it was? I’m not saying that speeches cannot tell us anything about presidential candidates. They can tell us who is the most charismatic and charisma is certainly an important quality for a president to have. My point is simply that speeches are only one way of gathering data about presidential candidates.
One of these statements is true: “Candidate A will make the best president” or “Candidate B will make the best president” (assuming of course a set definition for “best.”) Presidential debates are one way of gathering evidence about candidates. Speeches are another. The candidates’ websites are yet another. All of these are only sources through which we can gather information. They are reliable sources of information. They may not tell us everything there is to know about a candidate, but they can each tell us something of use about a candidate. Tabloids, meanwhile, are not reliable sources of information. It does not follow, however, that “Since Tabloid XY endorses candidate A, and tabloids are unreliable than Candidate A is the worst choice for president.” Maybe he is and maybe he isn’t. Hadn’t we better look and gather evidence from other more reliable sources before we make that conclusion? Saying a source is unreliable means that what that source has to say has no value and should probably be ignored. It does not mean we should conclude that the opposite of whatever the unreliable source says is true, nor does it mean we should stop trying to decide who warrants our vote.
People are sources of information. Being entertaining, charismatic, moral, passionate, pretty, graceful, or funny does not mean that what a person says and believes is automatically correct. Being boring, unlikable, immoral, apathetic, ugly, bungling, or badly spoken does not mean that what a person says and believes is automatically false. We are searchers after truth. Not searchers after who entertains us best or who we find least offensive. One must beware of gimmicks for one can all too easily use them as excuses to protect one’s pet ideas. It is not enough to say Stalin was an atheist. Albert Einstein and Ernest Hemingway were also atheists. No sane atheist will ever concede that the statement “Stalin said there is no God, but since he was a dictator, there must be no God” disproves atheism. Stalin is not a reliable source. That does not mean that what he said is automatically false. It is also not enough to say Hitler was a Christian. Bonhoeffer and Pope John Paul II were also Christians. Again, no sane Christian will ever concede that the statement “Hitler said there is such a thing as God, but since he is a dictator, there must be no such thing as God” disproves Christianity. Hitler is not a reliable source, but again that does not make everything he says automatically false. Neither Stalin nor Hitler should be consulted on these matters. Both atheists and Christians can be dictators, murderers, and thieves. Both atheists and Christians can be martyrs, heroes, and humanitarians.
So above when I said I and many others amount to nothing more than “peasant foot soldiers” I did not mean that everything said by “peasant foot soldiers” is necessarily false or even unreliable. I simply meant that people are well-served in searching for evidence from multiple sources including from sources that they may find intimidating. Being afraid someone will prove your supposition wrong, gives you no excuse to go on being wrong forever.
I now enter into the third kind of silly argument, one which I refer to as flowery nonsense. Though this one is not the most common, it is in some ways the hardest to root out as it is the one that can most readily disguise itself as intellectual. The most famous example is probably the question “can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?” With either possible answer, one admits that God cannot perform an action (either he cannot create such a stone or cannot lift such a stone) and therefore God cannot be omnipotent or all-powerful. One could come up with any number of questions like this. Can God create bright darkness? Can God make a round square? Can God make it be Thursday and Wednesday at once? Herein, we enter into a peculiar phenomenon. That is the ability of men to string together words to create impossible concepts. There is no such thing as a round square; such a thing cannot exist, not by the current definitions of “round” and “square.” But we can still say the words “round square” and even get a vague idea of something in our mind when we say it. If the Christian God exists, then he is the beginning and end of all things; there can be nothing greater. I believe he does exist, but I can still say the words “a being greater than God” and get a vague kind of mental image. That does not mean that such a thing is actually possible. Just because a thing can be imagined does not mean that it can actually exist. And I even contend that many of these things cannot really even be imagined. Can one really imagine a round square? Can one really imagine Wednesday and Thursday happening at once? Can one really imagine a being greater than God, or God creating a stone too heavy for him to lift? Probably in the first case, one pictures some kind of massive humanoid shape up in the sky or in space with an even larger, scarier one behind it or above it. In the latter, I picture a humanoid figure conjuring a stone out of thin air and then straining to lift it. No Christian will concede that either image is an accurate reflection of God. Both are results of what C. S. Lewis calls “picture thinking.” They are human attempts to imagine a thing which cannot be imagined. Unfortunately, we cannot determine if we are unable to truly imagine them because they are impossible (a round square) or because they simply transcend our understanding. (Try to imagine an atom or a black hole accurately; the most we can manage is an image that is somewhat like an atom or a black hole.)
So maybe the way to tell the difference is that when imagining an atom, we can at least picture something rather like an atom, but when we imagine a round square, we really imagine nothing. Perhaps we picture a square within a circle, but that is not a round square or even anything like a round square. So impossible things we cannot imagine at all, and possible things that transcend our understanding we can only somewhat imagine. If that is the case, could we not say that our picture thinking is somewhat like God lifting a stone or somewhat like a being greater than God? Well, I can use the same logic applied to the phrase “omnipotent God.” In that case, I picture a sagely, bearded man suspended in a void looking down on the universe encased in a glass ball. That’s ridiculous, but I can still argue that the image is somewhat like an omnipotent God. Yet if the God/stone question proves God is not omnipotent; that an omnipotent God is impossible; that an omnipotent God is a round square, I shouldn’t really be able to picture much of anything. And maybe my sagely, old man really is just like picturing a square within a circle: a nonsensical attempt to imagine an impossible thing. But how can we possibly prove that? It appears that picture thinking has no value in relation to determining whether a thing is possible or not.
Now we must examine the very idea of being all-powerful or omnipotent. I believe that the definition of all-powerful is usually given as “able to do all things” but I think a better definition might be “able to do all possible things.” Not all things which can be said or imagined are actually possible. In this case, if an all-powerful God, the Alpha and an Omega exists, than the idea that a greater being can exist is not possible even if it is vaguely imaginable. It is a round square; it is bright darkness. Likewise, is the idea that God could create a stone too heavy for him to lift.
Now, an atheist will be quick to point that I am trying to use the characteristics of God to prove the existence of God again. This is perhaps true and is born of yet another assumption. As I said above, we cannot prove if our vague picture thinking results from trying to imagine a scenario that is impossible or because the scenario simply transcends our understanding. Whichever one we choose, we are making an assumption. I am now simply asking that we make the momentary assumption that God exists and that he is in fact omnipotent and that omnipotence means “able to do all possible things.” In that case, the question “can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift” creates a self-contradictory paradox akin to the statement “Everything I say is a lie.” If an omnipotent being exists, than any scenario which renders the being unable to do something is inherently impossible. An omnipotent being unable to do a possible thing is the same thing as a round square or bright darkness. They are impossible. They are nonsense phrases. However, an omnipotent being unable to do an impossible thing is not a contradiction in terms. And it is impossible for an omnipotent being to do anything which defeats their omnipotence.
Another point an atheist might raise is that a Christian can use this logic to dismiss every possible objection on the grounds that “it renders God’s omnipotence inert which means that it is inherently impossible.” However, this idea really only applies to objections which attempt to use the definition of God’s nature against himself. God is defined as being eternal and omnipotent. (I’ll deal with the traits “good” and “perfect” at a later point.) If he truly is eternal and omnipotent, then it is inherently impossible for him to be otherwise. In that sense, God cannot cease to exist; he cannot create a being greater than himself; he cannot create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift. God cannot undermine his own nature, and no other entity can undermine the nature of God. (No other entity can cause God to cease to exist or create a being greater than God or create a stone too heavy for him to lift.) Such are inherent impossibilities. However, proving that God never existed in the first place is another thing entirely. So simply put, flowery nonsense phrases do not disprove the omnipotence of God, but they do not prove his existence either.